HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Income-tax Officer, Circle II, Madura and Another v. M. R. Vidyasagar
Civil Appeals Nos. 545 and 546 of 1960
[1962] Supp. 2 SCR 613 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 18A(1), 18A(2), 18A(6), 23(5) and 59 · Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1953: section 13 · Income-tax Rules: rule 48 · Constitution of India: Article 226
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
5-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by J. C. Shah, J. · B. P. Sinha, C.J. · J. L. Kapur, J. · M. Hidayatullah, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · J. R. Mudholkar, J.
Assessment years: 1946-47, 1948-49
01 · Facts of the case
An HUF manager underestimated advance-tax income. After regular assessments and later reduction of the firm income affecting the HUF share, the successor manager sought waiver or reduction under the retrospectively effective fifth proviso; the officer and Inspecting Assistant Commissioner refused (SCR pp.614-617; PDF pp.2-5).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The amendment and rule relaxed the formerly inflexible interest rule. Discretion applied where the assessment was pending on 1 April 1952 before an authority able to alter income, or commenced later. The Court expressly left wholly final pre-effective-date assessments open (SCR pp.618-622; PDF pp.6-10).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
Revenue's appeals were dismissed; the officer had to consider whether the facts justified exercising the discretion (SCR p.622; PDF p.10).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the assessee/HUF procedurally only; no waiver or reduction entitlement was decided (SCR p.622; PDF p.10).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: for transitional relief, ask whether the assessment remained before an authority able to alter income on the effective date. Do not convert a direction to consider discretion into substantive waiver.
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 10-page SCR asset read and visually inspected.
- Catalogue source S_1962_2_613_622: SHA-256 13bee868c900b580e19de7885c4582c113e1e5f61da0abb828e5b45699db0a7b, 10 pages, read and visually inspected in full.
- The published original preserves the exact catalogue bytes and verified hash.
- The source verifies identity, bench, provisions, opinion structure and operative order.
- No exact source-hash, asset-ID, SCR-citation, docket or same-judgment publication match was found.
Statutory scope
Repealed section 18A and rule 48 scheme; no current-law or citator clearance.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-11. Later judicial treatment and current statutory applicability have not been comprehensively checked; no current-law or citator clearance is represented.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.